CHAPTER XI.

WHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE

OLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORARY, OR A PERPETUAL

INSTITUTION.

A very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Christians is

founded upon the notion that the Jewish Law was a temporary

dispensation, only to exist till the coming of Jesus, when it was to

be superseded by a more perfect dispensation.

On the contrary, the Jews are persuaded that their Law is of

perpetual obligation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is hardly

more offensive to them, and, as they think, more contradictory to

the Scriptures, than the notion of the abrogation of it. Now, that the

Jews are on the right side of this question, i. e., arguing from the

Old Testament, I shall endeavour to prove by several arguments.

They are all comprised in these positions, 1. That the Mosaic

Institutions are most solemnly, and repeatedly declared to be

perpetual; and we have no account of their being abrogated, or to

be abrogated in the Old Testament. 2. They are declared to be

perpetual by Jesus himself, and were adhered to by the twelve

apostles.

1. Nothing can be more expressly asserted in the Old Testament

than the perpetual obligation of those rites which were to

distinguish the Jews from other nations. It appears, for instance,

(from the 17th ch. of Genesis,) in the tenor of the covenant made

with Abraham, that circumcision was to distinguish his posterity,

to the end of time. It is called “an everlasting covenant” to be kept

by his posterity through all their generations. See the ch. where the

condition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham and

his posterity, the perpetual inheritance of the promised land with

whatever privileges were implied in his being their God, on

condition that their male children were circumcised in testimony of

putting themselves under that covenant. There is no limitation with

respect to time; nay it is expressly said that the covenant should be

perpetual.

The ordinance of the Passover is also said to be perpetual, Ex. xii.

14, &c. “And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and you

shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations.

You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.” This is repeated

afterwards, and the observance of this rite is confined to Israelites,

Proselytes, and slaves who should be circumcised, v. 48.

The observance of the Sabbath was never to be discontinued, Ex.

xxxi. 16. “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath

throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign

between me and the children of Israel for ever.”

The appointment of the Family of Aaron to be Priests, was to

continue as long as the Israelites should be a nation. See Lev. vii.

35.

The Feast of Tabernacles was to be forever. Lev. xxiii. 41. “It

shall be a statute for ever, in your generations.” The observance of

this Festival is particularly mentioned in the prophecies, which

foretell a future settlement of the Jews in their own land, as

obligatory on all the world; as if an union of worship at Jerusalem

was to be, according to them, effected among all nations by the

united observance of this Festival there, see Zech. 14; what he

there says is confirmed by what Isaiah prophecied concerning the

same period. Is. 2. “It shall come to pass in the last days, that the

mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the

mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations

shall flow unto it. And many people shall go, and say, Come ye,

and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the

God of Jacob, and He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk

in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word

of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations,

and rebuke many people, and they shall beat their swords into

ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation. shall not

lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any

more.”

With respect to all the Laws of Moses, it is evident from the

manner in which they were promulgated, that they were intended

to be of perpetual obligation upon the Hebrew nation, and that by

the observance of them they were to be distinguished from the

other nations, see Deut. xxvi. 16.

The observance of their peculiar Laws was the express condition

on which the Israelites were to continue in possession of the

promised land; and though on account of their disobedience they

were to be driven out of it, they had the strongest assurances given

them that they should never be utterly destroyed, like many other

nations who should oppress them; but that on their repentance God

would gather them from the remote parts of the world, and bring

them to their own country again. And both Moses, and the later

Prophets assure them, that in consequence of their becoming

obedient to God in all things, which it is asserted they will, (and

which may be the natural consequence of the discipline they will

have gone through,) they shall be continued in the peaceable

enjoyment of the land of promise, in its greatest extent to the end

of time. See to this purpose Deut. iv. 25, &c.; also. Deut. 30,

where it is thus written.

“And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon

thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and

shalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy

God hath driven thee; and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and

shall obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day,

thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that,

then, the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have

compassion upon thee, and will return, and gather thee from all the

nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of

thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence

will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch

thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the Land which

thy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and He will do

thee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. And the Lord thy

God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the

Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou

mayest live; and the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon

thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all

his commandments which I command thee this day." &c.

“What an extent of prophecy, and how firm a faith in the whole of

it do we see here! (says Dr. Priestly.) The Israelites were not then

in the land of Canaan. It was occupied by nations far more

numerous, and powerful than they; and yet it is distinctly foretold

in the 4th ch. that they would soon take possession of it, and

multiply in it: and that afterwards they would offend God by their

idolatry, and wickedness, and would in con-sequence of it be

driven out of their country; and without being exterminated or

lost, be scattered among the nations of the world; that by this

dispersion, and their calamities, they would at length be reformed,

and restored to the divine favour, and that then (as in the quotation)

in the latter days they would be gathered from all nations, and

restored to their own country, when they would observe all the

laws which were then prescribed to them. Past history, and present

appearances, correspond with such wonderful exactness to what

has been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have no doubt with

respect to the complete accomplishment of what remains to be

fulfilled of it.”

What was first announced by Moses, is repeated by Isaiah and

other prophets, assuring them of their certain return wherever

dispersed, to their own land in the latter days; and that they should

have the undisturbed possession of it to the end of time.

It has been objected, that the term "for ever" is not always to be

understood in its greatest extant, but is to be interpreted according

to circumstances. This for the sake of saving time I will

acknowledge. But the circumstances in which this phrase is used in

the passages already adduced, and in a number of others of similar

import which might be adduced, clearly indicate, that it is to be

understood in those passages to mean a period as long as the

duration of the Israelitish nation, which elsewhere is said to

continue to the end of the world.

For this reason, among others, this final return of the Jews from

their present dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said to have

been accomplished at their return from the Babylonish captivity.

For that captivity was not by any means such a total dispersion of

the people among all nations, as Moses, and the later prophets

have foretold. Nor does their possession of the country subsequent

to it, at all correspond to that state of peace, and prosperity, which

was promised to succeed this final return.

Figures of speech must, no doubt, be allowed for. But if the whole

of the Jewish polity was to terminate at the destruction of

Jerusalem by Titus, (as is maintained by Christians,) while the

world is still to continue, the magnificent promises made to

Abraham, and his posterity, and to the nation, in general,

afterwards, have never had any proper accomplishment of all.

Because with respect to external prosperity, which is contained in

the promises, many nations have hitherto been more distinguished

by God, than the Jews. Hitherto the posterity of Ishmael has had a

much happier lot than that of Isaac. To say, as Christians do, that

these prophecies have had a spiritual accomplishment in the spread

of the Gospel, when there is nothing in the phraseology in which

the promises are expressed, that could possibly suggest any such

ideas, nay, when the promise itself in the most definite language

expresses the contrary, is so arbitrary a construction as nothing

can warrant. By this mode of interpretation, any event may be said

to be the fulfillment of any prophecy whatever.

Besides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, whether they

will be fulfilled, or not, cannot yet have been fulfilled. For all the

calamity that was ever to befall the Jewish nation is expressly said

to bear no sensible proportion to their subsequent prosperity:

whereas, their prosperity has hitherto borne a small proportion to

their calamity; so that had Abraham really foreseen the fate of his

posterity, he would on this idea, have had little reason to rejoice in

the prospect.

It may be said, that the prosperity of the descendants of Abraham,

was to depend on a condition, viz., their obedience, and that this

condition was not fulfilled. But, besides that the Divine Being must

have foreseen this circumstance, and therefore must have known

that he was only tantalizing Abraham with a promise which would

never be accomplished; this disobedience, and the consequences of

it are expressly mentioned by Moses, and the other Prophets, only

as a temporary thing, and what was to be succeeded by an effectual

repentance, and perpetual obedience, and prosperity.

Among others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in which the

future security of Israel is compared to the security of the world

from a second deluge) be considered, and let any impartial person

say, whether the language does not necessarily lead those who

believe the Old Testament, to the expectation of a much more

durable state of Glory, and Happiness, than has, as yet, fallen to the

lot of the posterity of Abraham.

Is. 54, 7. “For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great

mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee

for a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on

thee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of

Noah unto me. For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should

no more go over the earth, go have I sworn, that I would not be

wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall [or

“may”] depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not

depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be

removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.--All thy

children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of

thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established. Thou shalt

be far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for

it shall not come nigh thee. No weapon formed against thee, shall

prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment,

thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the

Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”

Here, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an establishment in

righteousness is promised to the Israelites, such as shall secure

their future prosperity; and this promise has not yet been fulfilled.

The promise of future virtue as connected with their future

happiness, is also clearly expressed in Jer. ch. iii. 18.

Had the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to become so, it

might, with some plausibility, have been said by Christians, that

the purposes of God concerning them were actually fulfilled, and,

therefore, that the words of the promise must have had some other

signification than that which was most obvious. But the Jews are as

much a distinct people as they ever were, and therefore seem

reserved for some future strange destination.

On the whole, it must be allowed, that the settlement of Israel in

the land of Canaan, foretold with such emphasis by the Prophets, is

a settlement which has not yet taken place, but may take place in

that period so frequently, and so emphatically, distinguished by the

title of “the latter days;” and therefore that whatever is said of

Jewish customs, or modes of worship in “the latter days?” is a

proof of the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites.

That the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be continued on the

restoration of the Jews to their own land after their utter dispersion,

is asserted by Moses himself in one of the passages already quoted;

but is more clearly expressed by the subsequent Prophets. In some

of their prophecies, particular mention is made of the observance

of Jewish festivals, and of sacrifices; and in Ezechiel we find a

description of a magnificent Temple, which being closely

connected with his prophecy of the future happy state of the

Israelites in their own land, cannot be understood of any other than

a Temple which is then, according to the Hebrew Prophets, to be

reared with greater magnificence than ever. Mention is also made

of “the Glory of the Lord,” or that effulgent Shechinah which was

the symbol of the divine presence, filling this Temple, as it did that

of Solomon.

Ezech. xliii. 1, &c. “Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the

gate that looketh toward the East; and behold the glory of the Lord

came from the way of the East, and his voice was like the noise of

many waters, and the Earth shined with his Glory.--And the Glory

of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate, whose

prospect is toward the East. So the Spirit took me up, and brought

me into the inner court, and behold the Glory of the Lord filled the

house.--And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my

Throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in

the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name shall

the house of Israel no more defile,” &c.

Towards the end of the same chapter we read an account of the

dedication of this new Temple by sacrifices; and particular

directions are given in the succeeding chapters for the Priests, and

for the Prince. If, therefore, there be any truth in these prophecies,

the Jews are not only to return to their own country, and to be

distinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, and

to restore the ancient worship.

Having proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity of

the Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to be

perpetual by Jesus himself.

But before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that when

any Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of it

should be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room for

dispute may remain upon the subject. Accordingly, it is the

custom, I believe, in all countries, not to make any new Law,

contradictory to another before subsisting, without a previous

express abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me a

strange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law given

from mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, and

tremendously magnificent, and believed to have been declared by

the voice of God to be a perpetual and everlasting Code, should

vanish, perish, and be annihilated by the mere dictum of twelve

fishermen!!

But the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching the

abrogation of that law, that he expressly says--” Think not that I

am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come to

destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and

earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

till all be fulfilled.” This is a most explicit declaration that not the

smallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended to be set aside

by the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his disciples to

the same purpose--“The Scribes and Pharisees (says he,) sit in

Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they command you, that

observe, and do.”

It is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourse

relates to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that no

part of the Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that the

expression is general, there could be no occasion to make so

solemn a declaration against what he could not have been

suspected of intending, viz. of abolishing the moral law. He seems

in his discourse to have had in view the additions that had been

made to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original law

itself.

It has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such an

accomplishment of it as would imply the superseding of it when

the purposes for which it was instituted should be answered. To

silence this explication it will be sufficient to produce a few out of

many passages of the New Testament where the term fulfil occurs

in connexion with the term law. Thus Paul says, Gal. v. 14, “All

the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy

neighbour as thyself,” and again. Rom. xiii. 8, “He that loveth

another, hath fulfilled the law.” But certainly, notwithstanding this

fulfilment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever.

The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it

is evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were

zealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident from

their surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and in

the dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles;

observe there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews.

Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary

doctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting

him in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21,” They (i. e. the

Christians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou

teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake

Moses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children,

neither to walk after the custom.” Here James gives Paul to

understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and

accordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false

report, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish

Christians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an

instance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and

thus publicly manifest that he himself “walked orderly, and kept

the law.” Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in

the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest

Jews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert to

Christianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he

solemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, “Against the law of

the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing at

all,” and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he assures

them that “he had done nothing against the people, or the customs

of the fathers.”

But some men will say,” did not Paul expressly teach the

abrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the

Galatians?” I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he

contradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve

Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is

none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend

his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach

this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this “hidden wisdom,” to

the Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the

uncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was “all things to all

men!” and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. “that he

was determined at any rate to gain some.” If this be double

dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none

of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the

reconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it;

perhaps they can hunt up some “traditionary rules of interpretation

among the Jews,” that will help them to explain the matter.

Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his

Apostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the

laws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when

the Jewish worship would cease of course.

This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium of

the Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for the

other arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1

ch. of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose;

they being merely declarations of God, that he preferred obedience

in the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness,

to ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more avail

with him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts,) and this

argument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, will

be “found wanting.”

For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly

did not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, do

it. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it

is equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a very

considerable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeen

hundred years, has been kept without the Temple. As for example,

circumcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And when, if

ever, they shall return to their own land, and rebuild the Temple,

they will then, according to the Old Testament, observe the whole,

and with greater splendour than ever.

The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old · 第 11 / 19 章